Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds. 

Case Overview

Case Name: Habib Alladin & Ors. Versus Mohammed Ahmed

In Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahme, the Supreme Court examined the statutory limits of Waqf Tribunal jurisdiction under the Waqf Act 1995 . The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Telangana High Court’s ruling that upheld an injunction granted by a Waqf Tribunal over an unregistered property . The judgment clarifies that Tribunals cannot assume jurisdiction merely on claims of religious use without statutory recognition under the Act .

Key Aspects

The dispute arose from a claim asserting the waqf nature of a property without statutory compliance . The Court closely analysed the factual matrix to determine whether the Tribunal could even examine such a claim . The focus remained on registration and notification as jurisdictional pre-conditions .

• The respondent claimed a room became a mosque due to long religious use since 2008.
• The property was not included in the “list of auqaf” under Section 5(2) .
• The property was also not registered under Section 37 of the Waqf Act 1995 .
• Despite this, the Waqf Tribunal granted a permanent injunction later affirmed by the High Court .

Legal Insights

To resolve conflicting precedents, the Court undertook a strict statutory interpretation of the Waqf Act 1995 . It clarified the true scope of Tribunal powers and the conditions for exclusion of civil court jurisdiction .

• Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) restrict Tribunal adjudication to notified waqf properties .
• Section 83(1) is only an enabling provision for constitution of Tribunals not a source of blanket jurisdiction .
• Section 85 bars civil court jurisdiction only where matters fall within lawful Tribunal competence .
• The ruling reaffirmed Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) over Rashid Wali Beg (2022) .

Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court held that Waqf Tribunals cannot entertain disputes over properties not registered or notified under the Act . The appeal was allowed, Tribunal and High Court orders were set aside, and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of jurisdiction .

Source – Supreme Court 

Read also – CPC

The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice